35 (Mum). (iv) J.K. Investor Ltd. v. DCIT

74 ITD 274Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2000#25725 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing 35 (Mum). (iv) J.K. Investor Ltd. v. DCIT

MLL LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 164/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Hon’Ble) & Shri Saktijit Dey (Hon’Ble)

Section 115JSection 133(6)

…enquiry to ascertain whether the municipal ratable value is the actual fair market value prevailing at the relevant point of time. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions:- 1. J.K. Investors (Bom) Ltd vs Dy.CIT (2000) 74 ITD 274 (Mum)(Trib) 2. CIT vs Tip Top Typography ITA No.1213 of 2011, dt 8/8/2014 (Bom HC) 3. CIT vs Moni Kumar Subba ITA No.803 of 2007 dt 30/3/2011 (Delhi HC) 4.Shri Owais Hussain vs ITO ITA No.4320/M/2016 A.Y. 2006-07 dt.11/05/2018 (Mum)(Trib) 4 ITA 164/Mum/2019 5.Pankaj Wadhwa vs ITO (2019) 101 taxmann.com 161 (Mum)(Trib) 6. Marg Ltd vs CIT (2020) 12…

ITO 14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ALTITUS MANAGEMENT ADVISORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4259/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ito 14(1)(1) M/S Altitus Managment R. No. 431, 4Th Floor, Advisors P. Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Metropolitan Building Block Mumbai: 400 020. E, 5Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400 051 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aafca2213B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar Sheth A.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 23Section 24

…y Ltd. Vs. ACIT-5(2), Mumbai (2012) 28 taxman.com 78 (Mum). (ii) ACIT, 19(3) Vs. Monisha R. Jaysingh (2012) 21 taxman.com 9 (Mum). (iii) DCIT-10(1), Mumbai Vs. Reclamation Realty India (P) Ltd. (2011) 9 taxman 35 (Mum). (iv) J.K. Investor Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2000) 74 ITD 274 (Mum). , had concluded that if the income was offered by the assessee under Sec. 23(1)(b) then the notional interest on the interest free deposits received from the lessees cannot be added to the income of the assessee. The CIT(A) observed that the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of J.K. Investor Ltd. (supra) was confirmed by the Hon’ble…

BOHEA PROPERTIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5754/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Bohea Properties Pvt. Ltd. Ito- 6(1)(4), 608, Regent Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacb2435R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat (AR)For Respondent: Shri U.B. Jakke (DR)

Section 23Section 23(1)(a)

…al interest @ 10% should not be worked out on the security deposit and same be not added to the Annual Letting Value (ALV) of the property, the assessee submitted his reply dated 26.03.2012 and relied upon the decision of J.K. Investor (Bombay) Ltd. vs. DCIT (74 ITD 274), Malad International Ltd. Vs. DCIT (13 SOT 49), Super Leasing Ltd. vs. ACIT (56 TTJ 258) and submitted that property under reference is jointly owned by the assessee- company with M/s Noraza Estates & Investments Pvt. Ltd. 4. After considering the submission, the AO invoked the provision of section 23(1)(a) of the Act. The AO further observed tha…